1984 Evaluation

• Fair on trespasser as they can now sue.  Before the Act there was no redress – recognises way people should be treated (common duty of humanity). Should help raise standards.  Covers all trespassers, both deliberate and innocent.
• 1.       Fair on occupier:


  ·       as there is a lower duty owed to trespassers than lawful visitors.  This shows balance in the law as the person should not be there in the first place.

  ·       Covered by insurance.

  ·       Several defences will lower or eliminate liability (warning sign, consent, and obvious risks – Ratcliffe & contributory negligence)

  ·       Only covers personal injury – Ld Hoffman said it would be ‘too burdensome’ to include property damage.

  ·       Only need do what is reasonable (Tomlinson)
• 1.       Unfair on occupier:


  ·       If claims made will increase insurance premiums

  • Expense of precautions
• Public do not support trespassers having a claim. Following a public outcry after the case of Revill (intruder injured and was given legal aid to sue the occupier). As a result, cases like Tomlinson appear to be reluctant to allow claims where there are obvious risks, the cost of precautions is too onerous, and the trespasser engages in ‘foolhardy pursuits’.